2020 US Election (Part One)

[Zardnaar]

Right because conservatives are patriots and liberals hate America.

Not really. A lot of the time it's not what you say but how you say it.

And this started around 50 years ago during Vietnam.

Protesting the war sure fine. Going around waving North Vietnam flags and being photographed on NV anti aircraft guns is crossing the line IMHO.

 

[Dekker]

Not really. A lot of the time it's not what you say but how you say it.

And this started around 50 years ago during Vietnam.

Protesting the war sure fine. Going around waving North Vietnam flags and being photographed on NV anti aircraft guns is crossing the line IMHO.

And marching with tiki torches is what the right is.

 

[Zardnaar]

And marching with tiki torches is what the right is.

200 odd people out of 320 million. Not exactly a mass movement.

 

[Dekker]

200 odd people out of 320 million.

Damn I missed Woodstock NV.

 

[Zardnaar]

Damn I missed Woodstock NV.

Context please? Not American.

 

[Dekker]

Context please? Not American.

You wave off only 200 tiki marchers, therefore implying there were thousands being photographed on NV anti aircraft guns.

 

[Zardnaar]

You wave off only 200 tiki marchers, therefore implying there were thousands being photographed on NV anti aircraft guns.

Derp I thought NV was Nevada and Woodstock here is an alcoholic drink.

No one famous was in the 200 people and Fonda was kind of a poster child of the anti war movement.

Remember in the 70s the liberal wing of the Dems were annihilated electorally. Pelosi and Biden remember. When you get a lot if extremism things tend to swing the other way hence why I think Dems will do well 2020.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

"What we did to the Native Americans is different because reasons", I guess?

The reasons are mostly time/history and possibly effort. Although Brits infected a few blankets with small pox and Spaniards enslaved the indigenous peoples and both committed what would nowadays be war crimes, 90% of the population of Native Americans were wiped out by disease, most of this being unintentional spreading. A few centuries later and the Nazis industrialized genocide. Now, the CCP has digitized cultural genocide, long after most of the world has woken up to how atrociously evil active/actual genocide is. Just because something was the norm in the past does not mean it should be continued. I’m not going further off topic by talking about extortion in the US health care system, which some say is genocide of the poor and disabled.

 

[Zardnaar]

The reasons are mostly time/history and possibly effort. Although Brits infected a few blankets with small pox and Spaniards enslaved the indigenous peoples and both committed what would nowadays be war crimes, 90% of the population of Native Americans were wiped out by disease, most of this being unintentional spreading. A few centuries later and the Nazis industrialized genocide. Now, the CCP has digitized cultural genocide, long after most of the world has woken up to how atrociously evil active/actual genocide is. Just because something was the norm in the past does not mean it should be continued. I’m not going further off topic by talking about extortion in the US health care system, which some say is genocide of the poor and disabled.

The west just came out on top by hitting industrialization 1st.

If the Turks/Arabs/Mongols got their first the positions would be reversed.

Or if China eventually comes out on top.

Is the USA flawed? Absolutely. Are they the worst (Stalins Russia, Nazi Germany, CCP China) nope.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Inasmuch as I'm not really digging the idea of Biden being the nominee, I have to admit that him going at it with that random guy at the Iowa town hall made me cheer for him. He really laid into that guy... all but challenged him to a fight, and the dude deserved it. If you haven't seen it yet its worth a watch.

I was with him until he starting in on how fat and dumb the guy was. Let's do push ups. Let's do what it takes. I'm not sedentary. Let's take an IQ test.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, but the US came out of that on top of the world because our homeland was largely untouched by the conflict.

The United States was easily the top nation following the Great War. The European empires were broke and many of their most profitable business enterprises around the world had been sold or mortgaged to the United States to pay for armaments.
EDIT: I forgot to finish this thought. I highly recommend Adam Tooze's The Deluge if you are interested in just how economically dominant the US was after the Great War.

Seems like when the US withdraws from world affairs, other nations quickly get at each other's throats to the benefit of the US. So why not try it again?

Oh, right; I forgot I am dealing with a sociopath who doesn't get why conflicts that leaves untold millions dead and dying is inherently a terrible thing that should be struggled against.

Moderator Action: Make your point without personally attacking the poster, please. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

And plus, the rest of the world is constantly telling us we need to stop acting like the global police. All I'm saying is we should give the world what it wants. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?

Was invading Iraq acting like the "global police"? Is propping up sordid little dictators whose only redeeming quality is their openness to brutalizing reformers acting like the 'global police'? Was [insert from literally endless list of things] acting like the 'global police'?

I also note I asked you for a top ten list of ''good things the US has done in the last decade the world didn't thank us enough for'. Not sure if I should read anything into the lack of such a list in your post.

Remember in the 70s the liberal wing of the Dems were annihilated electorally. Pelosi and Biden remember. When you get a lot if extremism things tend to swing the other way hence why I think Dems will do well 2020.

Was it annihilated though? For the time, Carter had a pretty progressive social agenda, and despite his favoring deregulation* an economic agenda I would place as not too far away from Sanders. I don't remember if Sanders has ever talked about using a national economic policy to maintain full employment. Carter also proposed comprehensive economic reform to address the energy crisis and the first rumblings of climate change. Carter ran on a similar platform in 1980 but was up against a strong GOP candidate (who actively tried to keep the Iranians from releasing the hostages until Carter was out of office) and a very strong 3rd party candidate in John Anderson who drew heavily from what would become the modern democratic coalition - college students and educated professionals- with a liberal social policy and economic centrism - along with a number of policies that don't really fit into today's politics (like opposition to reinstatement of draft registration). In 1984 Mondale ran a campaign that, with its heavy focus on unions and union-friendly policy was arguably to the left of Jimmy Carter and more liberal. For example, Mondale was regarded at the time as the first candidate to intentionally court the 'gay vote'. It was only after Mondale was massively defeated in 1984 (though, let it be said, 40% of the country supported him - a not inconsiderable number) that the Democrats began giving up on a progressive economic agenda and replacing it with a business-friendly agenda under the 'New Democrats' and the Democratic Leadership Council with people like Clinton.
*In many cases understandable and in some cases completely needed (such as with railways).

 

[Zardnaar]

The United States was easily the top nation following the Great War. The European empires were broke and many of their most profitable business enterprises around the world had been sold or mortgaged to the United States to pay for armaments. The

Oh, right; I forgot I am dealing with a sociopath who doesn't get why conflicts that leaves untold millions dead and dying is inherently a terrible thing that should be struggled against.


Was invading Iraq acting like the "global police"? Is propping up sordid little dictators whose only redeeming quality is their openness to brutalizing reformers acting like the 'global police'? Was [insert from literally endless list of things] acting like the 'global police'?

I also note I asked you for a top ten list of ''good things the US has done in the last decade the world didn't thank us enough for'. Not sure if I should read anything into the lack of such a list in your post.


Was it annihilated though? For the time, Carter had a pretty progressive social agenda, and despite his favoring deregulation* an economic agenda I would place as not too far away from Sanders. I don't remember if Sanders has ever talked about using a national economic policy to maintain full employment. Carter also proposed comprehensive economic reform to address the energy crisis and the first rumblings of climate change. Carter ran on a similar platform in 1980 but was up against a strong GOP candidate (who actively tried to keep the Iranians from releasing the hostages until Carter was out of office) and a very strong 3rd party candidate in John Anderson who drew heavily from what would become the modern democratic coalition - college students and educated professionals- with a liberal social policy and economic centrism - along with a number of policies that don't really fit into today's politics (like opposition to reinstatement of draft registration). In 1984 Mondale ran a campaign that, with its heavy focus on unions and union-friendly policy was arguably to the left of Jimmy Carter and more liberal. For example, Mondale was regarded at the time as the first candidate to intentionally court the 'gay vote'. It was only after Mondale was massively defeated in 1984 (though, let it be said, 40% of the country supported him - a not inconsiderable number) that the Democrats began giving up on a progressive economic agenda and replacing it with a business-friendly agenda under the 'New Democrats' and the Democratic Leadership Council with people like Clinton.
*In many cases understandable and in some cases completely needed (such as with railways).

Dems lost a lot from 68-92. Carter won a single term because Nixon was that toxic.

Clinton and co moved to the center because they had to.

25 year losing streak more or less a'la GoP after Hoover.

If the GoP loses 2018,20,22 they will need to reform or look at no power for a generation or so.

Whoever wins the nomination regardless if they are an SJW or centrist if you want Trump gone vote Dem regardless even in a red state. Dems need to rebuild in red states to turn them purple.

Next Senate vote is 2024 iirc electoral boundaries are 2020, supreme Court RBG isn't getting younger.

 

[Ajidica]

Dems lost a lot from 68-92. Carter won a single term because Nixon was that toxic.

Yes, the Democrats struggled during that time, because the party was ripping itself apart over Vietnam and civil rights. The great realignment of the 60s and 70s was a far more bloody process for the democrats than the republicans. The democrats were literally expelling what had been a large part of their electoral base -the racist vote / white southern establishment- while still trying to assemble the modern democratic party. The GOP found it much easier to ditch civil rights (which had always been much more of an east coast / Rockefeller Republican thing) and pander on the down low to the racists and so-called 'values voters'*. The liberal/progressive economic agenda may have been abandoned by the late 80s but the social agenda was firmly a part of Democratic policy since the late 80s.

25 year losing streak more or less a'la GoP after Hoover.

Did you intentionally forget FDR and Truman, or just not care?
It is also worth pointing out that Eisenhower was actively courted by both Democrats and Republicans to run as president. Eisenhower only went with the GOP because he disapproved how Truman handled China and Korea. Even Nixon, when pushed, was in favor of economic interventionist polices such as price supports, price controls, and wage controls, and (allegedly) said "We're all Keynesian now".
*The same values voters who preferred a divorced Hollywood actor to a guy who to this day teaches sunday school.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, the Democrats struggled during that time, because the party was ripping itself apart over Vietnam and civil rights. The great realignment of the 60s and 70s was a far more bloody process for the democrats than the republicans. The democrats were literally expelling what had been a large part of their electoral base -the racist vote / white southern establishment- while still trying to assemble the modern democratic party. The GOP found it much easier to ditch civil rights (which had always been much more of an east coast / Rockefeller Republican thing) and pander on the down low to the racists and so-called 'values voters'*. The liberal/progressive economic agenda may have been abandoned by the late 80s but the social agenda was firmly a part of Democratic policy since the late 80s.


Did you intentionally forget FDR and Truman, or just not care?
It is also worth pointing out that Eisenhower was actively courted by both Democrats and Republicans to run as president. Eisenhower only went with the GOP because he disapproved how Truman handled China and Korea. Even Nixon, when pushed, was in favor of economic interventionist polices such as price supports, price controls, and wage controls, and (allegedly) said "We're all Keynesian now".
*The same values voters who preferred a divorced Hollywood actor to a guy who to this day teaches sunday school.

Kind of my point. Lurch to far left or right you get annihilated at the election.

GoPs lurched to far right IMHO and will likely reap the consequences.

Unless the Dems spit out the worst candidate in the world.

 

[Ajidica]

Kind of my point. Lurch to far left or right you get annihilated at the election.

When were the Democrats lurching to the far left? Pursuing anti-monopolist pro-worker Keynesian economics is what secured the Democrats the presidency multiple times and set the ground for a generally solid House majority through the post-war years until the 'Republican Revolution' in the 90s. Until the 80s various strains of Keynesianism was an uncontroversial part of US economic policy in both parties.
EDIT: To add, the famous quote about Democrats being the part of "amnesty, acid, and abortion" has, as a result of the abandonment of left-wing economic policy, basically become true (with amnesty no longer being a political issue). Political positions are not set in stone. What was seen as too liberal and a vote-killer in the 70s is now seen by serious politicians and strategy firms as vote-winners in a democratic party focused on social issues.

 

[Commodore]

Was invading Iraq acting like the "global police"? Is propping up sordid little dictators whose only redeeming quality is their openness to brutalizing reformers acting like the 'global police'? Was [insert from literally endless list of things] acting like the 'global police

Yes those things are often cited by critics of the US as instances of us acting as global police because "global police" is usually a derogatory term used to describe the US.

I'm still not sure though why you seem to have a problem with the idea of the US giving up its position as global hegemon and letting the world solve its own problems? Especially since you are obviously highly critical of our efforts to intervene in conflicts across the globe. It seems like wanting the US to take a more passive role in global politics is something you and I should be agreeing on right now.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm still not sure though why you seem to have a problem with the idea of the US giving up its position as global hegemon and letting the world solve its own problems?

Because the last time that worked out so well.

Especially since you are obviously highly critical of our efforts to intervene in conflicts across the globe. It seems like wanting the US to take a more passive role in global politics is something you and I should be agreeing on right now.

I am critical of how we intervene around the globe - in both conflicts, political, and economic disputes - but strangely, right now I seem to be in the position of arguing that the US can provide great leadership on issues. Without the US there would have been no JCPOA or Paris Climate Accords. Nobody else has the diplomatic pull necessary to herd cats other countries on large agreements, along with a (generally) positive stance on issues.
It is precisely because I have such faith in our ability to do good in the world that I react so strongly to all the terrible things the United States does in the world.

 

[Commodore]

right now I seem to be in the position of arguing that the US can provide great leadership on issues

But the global community is making it increasingly clear they aren't interested in us providing that leadership. So continuing to impose that leadership on the world, even if for noble causes, would seem to serve only to create more animosity towards the US and convince more people that we are just a bunch of imperialists that want to boss the world around.

So maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for the US to back off for a while. Maybe give someone else a shot at being a global leader. There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of nations that think they can do a better job than us.

I've also come to agree with the thinking that the US needs to get out of the business of fighting other people's wars. I also think that while we should maintain informal agreements of support with certain nations, we should also untangle ourselves from this web of formal, legally-binding alliances we've gotten ourselves in over the years. Our alliances are going to come back and bite us in the butt one day and get us into a war we don't want to fight. Plus, let's not forget that it was intricate and complex webs of alliances that what should have just been a regional conflict between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire escalated into a global war.

 

[Dekker]

But the global community is making it increasingly clear they aren't interested in us providing that leadership. So continuing to impose that leadership on the world, even if for noble causes, would seem to serve only to create more animosity towards the US and convince more people that we are just a bunch of imperialists that want to boss the world around.

So maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for the US to back off for a while. Maybe give someone else a shot at being a global leader. There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of nations that think they can do a better job than us.

I've also come to agree with the thinking that the US needs to get out of the business of fighting other people's wars. I also think that while we should maintain informal agreements of support with certain nations, we should also untangle ourselves from this web of formal, legally-binding alliances we've gotten ourselves in over the years. Our alliances are going to come back and bite us in the butt one day and get us into a war we don't want to fight. Plus, let's not forget that it was intricate and complex webs of alliances that what should have just been a regional conflict between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire escalated into a global war.

What war have we fought that wasn't for our own interests??

 

[Ajidica]

But the global community is making it increasingly clear they aren't interested in us providing that leadership.

That's certainly not the impression from the last few years, especially in Europe. Both Merkel and Macron have made it very clear they view the absence of US leadership as a major concern; with Merkel saying that Europe will have to look to its own solutions* and Macron calling NATO 'brain-dead'.
*Which should terrifying anyone. The last time Europe 'looked to its own solutions' during the global financial crisis it just about caused the collapse of the European economy and was only prevented because the Fed took active steps to prevent the flow of dollars to Europe from draining up and Obama basically yelled at Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande to get their act together and stop messing around. (Source: Adam Tooze, Crashed.)

So maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for the US to back off for a while. Maybe give someone else a shot at being a global leader. There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of nations that think they can do a better job than us.

Who would you turn to? Europe? They are wrapped up in their own internal issues and too dependent on US banking to be a 'global leader'. Even if that gets sorted, there is still the fact the German political class is terrified about taking leadership on security issues and I trust the French even less than the US, nevermind that the French are still trying to put Francafrique back together and never really have forgiven the US for breaking it up in the 90s.
The Russians? Yeah, that's a bad idea. Don't think I need to elaborate why it would be so terrible, and this is coming from someone who is generally sympathetic (albeit not agreeing with!) to Russian security concerns.
The Chinese? See above.
Beyond that, I can't think of anyone who even comes close to being able to replace the US as ideally the guarantor of international stability and security.

I've also come to agree with the thinking that the US needs to get out of the business of fighting other people's wars. I also think that while we should maintain informal agreements of support with certain nations, we should also untangle ourselves from this web of formal, legally-binding alliances we've gotten ourselves in over the years. Our alliances are going to come back and bite us in the butt one day and get us into a war we don't want to fight. Plus, let's not forget that it was intricate and complex webs of alliances that what should have just been a regional conflict between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire escalated into a global war.

Christ, what a weird world this is where I, a committed lefty in international relations with a deeply cynical view of foreign affairs, is in the position of defending the importance of US leadership in international affairs and the importance of security alliances such as NATO.

EDIT: At the risk of repeating myself:

I also note I asked you for a top ten list of ''good things the US has done in the last decade the world didn't thank us enough for'. Not sure if I should read anything into the lack of such a list in your post.

I'm not trying to get you in a GOTCHA! moment. Just want to better understand your thought process and understanding.